About a token that generates revenue for the issuing corporation

irritant 2016-09-23 03:22:39 UTC #26

they can show some digital gold in their accounts BTC, PPC you know, backbone currency

Gilbert 2016-09-25 09:58:24 UTC #27

If nu has shares in private companies economize, it can generate revenue.
ownership of land, Sustainable Forestry
ownership of storage facilities, storage of foreign and own things. eg wood
ownership of farmland, self-cultivation or lease

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-25 14:54:39 UTC #28

If that would work easily, a “Hayek” coin would be easy as well.
You need a way to store those shares in a way that’s out of reach of governments - I have no solution for that.

Sabreiib 2016-09-26 00:29:14 UTC #29

digital gold - BTC - is the only way.

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-26 04:21:41 UTC #30

No, it isn’t

irritant 2016-09-26 04:25:05 UTC #31

You’re saying the same thing (or I don’t understand the difference), BTC also know as digital gold (not in exchange of BTC), is how I read Sabreiib comment

You issue tokens that represent onwership of (just as an example) a% BTC

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-26 04:53:20 UTC #32

I’m not saying the same thing.
I’m saying something similar, which is different in an important aspect.

as opposed to

in which BTC is only a part. The tokens represent index ownership just like with index ETF at stock exchanges.
That difference is important.

I hoped that the initial post presented my idea more clearly.
Which part needs rework?

irritant 2016-09-26 05:05:19 UTC #33

ok maybe I’m wrong, still I think he means the same, except naming only one example of digital gold, it could (of course), also be a number of those (PPC, XPM, XMR), which would result in what you are saying, an index
@Sabreiib maybe you better speak for yourself

Sabreiib 2016-09-26 07:20:10 UTC #34

BTC is digital gold, XPM is trying to become digital gold(copper?), PPC theoretically not possible become digital gold.

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-26 08:00:55 UTC #35

I’d happily include PPC and XPM for technological reasons in that index.

PPC can be regarded as a kind of ‘insurance’ against BTC failure. PPC as old PoS coin with a track record might be seen as safe harbour in case BTC fails. I don’t know about its potential independent from BTC failure. PPC trade volume is quite low. It should have only a minor role in the index.

XPM is quite ASIC resistant. Are there even FPGAs? I’m only aware of GPU miners. The inflation model is smoother than Bitcoin’s and the number of tx per time can exceed Bitcoin’s.
But I fear there’s not really enough trade volume in XPM pairs to consider it for the index.

To float an idea possible members of such an index could be (part 1):
BTC
ETH
XMR
LTC
FCT
XCP
DASH
NXT
MAID
BTS

Optional members with low percentage (due to design or trade volume (part 2); or candidates for a second, ‘increased risk’ index):
WAVES
EMC
SJCX
SYS
NSR
XPM

The choice is somewhat randomly taken from listings on coinmarketcap, although I tried to include coins with a reasonable trade volume and features (vastly/slightly) different from other index members.
Part 2 obviously deals with a set of coins that should have only little percentage (due to little trade volume), but could play a role (due to features) in an index - maybe a separate index.

Sabreiib 2016-09-26 08:31:55 UTC #36

These cryptos are all very volatile, because if BTC price halves over night, most of them also follow, are all “bad money”, if we peg to these, the meaning of peg is gone.

Then why not use BTC directly? @ConfusedObserver, do you know the meaning of “stable currency” at all?

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-26 09:11:26 UTC #37

I know about stable currency.
I hope you can concur that the token I proposed is stable related to the tokens in the index.

I never tried to create a token stable to a fiat currency this way. I didn’t even try to create “good money”, because of the issues elaborated in the initial post.

I was just trying to propose a token that has some use and can be utilized by Nu for making revenue when selling it at an offset.

Customers might want to pay the offset, because it saves them from building their own index fund with a lot of different tokens.
Here they buy the tokens with BTC, they sell the tokens for BTC. Nu converts the BTC in fractions of the coins listed in the index. Customers have a token that’s backed by a lot of currencies without the need to sync blockchains, manage private keys for all coins etc.

Is that not clear from the initial post?
I’d love to make a proposal for “good money”. Without being able to hold the necessary stocks, futures, ETFs in a way that’s not prone to government regulation/confiscation I made a side step and fled to crypto currencies.

How shall Nu be able to make money from pegging to BTC?
My index has some diversification and I dare say that not all coins in the index follow BTC.

Depending on the reason for a BTC price move, the might move contrarily.
Imagine BTC drops because of issues with PoW. What do you think will happen with PoS coins?
Inagine BTC drops because of issues with SHA.
What do you think will happen with algorithms different from SHA?

Would you rather buy single stocks or index ETFs?

My proposal offers you a “crypto index ETF”.
The most simpe version would be using all the top (by market cap) coins - just like Dow Jones Index, Nikkei index etc.

Sabreiib 2016-09-26 12:18:23 UTC #38

BTC and ETH account for most trade volume in cryptos, other cryptos are ignorable

You can always make money from spread trade, in spite of what you pegging to.

Gilbert 2016-09-26 13:19:46 UTC #39

Is it really necessary … to store those shares in a way that’s out of reach of governments?
Such shares are not competing with the monetary system. A forest is always worth the same, regardless of the inflation.
One can also conclude contracts with governments in which the values or shares are.
I see no difference whether someone from China buys a company in Europe or whether Nushare buys a company in Europe.
Edit:
It’s comparable to an international real estate fund. Only with the difference that you can use the equity shares as money. Why should governments forbid?

mhps 2016-09-26 13:32:18 UTC #40

Nulagoon already demonstrated levered btc derived products. you just needto issue a coin pegged to shares of one of the pools.

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-26 14:11:12 UTC #41

To make a future proof solution: I think so.
Using only crypto coins in that fund you already have that solution available.

Are you speaking of the crypto coin index or the attempt to provide “good money” on a blockchain that fails because of the inability to handle stocks, commodities, ETFs easily?

You want to rely on a third party? What for? Does Nulagoon have anything except for BTC and NBT pools available? How to include all the coins you want to? Make requests at Nulagoon? I don’t understand why you prefer using a third party with all the overhead and consequences.

Don’t you think a crypto coin index can be understood, maintained and reported more easily?
If you publish the addresses involved in the index (the multisig addresses holding the coins), anyone can check the transactions and balances on the blockchain.

mhps 2016-09-26 16:21:12 UTC #42

I mean that NuLagoon DEMONSTRATED the way. A crypto doesn’t need to invent anything earth shattering – it just needs to make such pools like Nulagoon did – and it will have a crypto that is useful and in principle make money for the issuer from spread. With some modification one can issue a set of three coins – one short-btc, one X-time long btc, one stable (0% interest pool) coin.

The question still remains the same: why call it a currency when you are just selling fund/shares?

ConfusedObserver 2016-09-26 17:04:48 UTC #43

I didn’t call it that. I even stated

Indeed I’m just trying to sell shares of a crypto coin fund at an offset.
Being processed on a blockchain they can be bought/sold at nominal value - or whatever the market decides. At least I expect these tokens to be traded.
Nu will always buy them back at book value in case somebody wants the BTC from Nu and not from a trader.
The book value will create the (still volatile!) price floor of the tokens.

ConfusedObserver:

The issuer requests an offset when selling the tokens of quite a few percent. 10% or more doesn’t look unrealistic, especially not if you account for the real inflation rate of e.g. USD. I’m aware that the Fed proclaims a low inflation rate, but depending on what you look at, USD had a considerable inflation rate during the last 8 years. You save the customers creating a basket of all that commodities and goods, provide them with a token that’s fungible and can be transferred in small units, save them from the exchange fees they have to pay when buying e.g. exchange traded funds (ETF) and offer a token that represents all those commodities and goods.
I’m favoring ETF, because that would save from some trouble dealing with way too many individual products/index funds.
From that offset the operational costs are paid and on top of that revenue can be made.

I don’t know how I could make my proposal more clear.

BusinessGuy 2016-09-28 23:06:31 UTC #44

It’s been a while since I have caught up with your posts. Firstly @Phoenix well done in restoring the peg. I continue to believe though that without a revenue model the peg is still very exposed to a significant increase in the value of Bitcoin, or simply time eking away at any reserves/liquidity.
This post was of interest as I think a Cryptocoin fund is a good idea. XBT Provider do a Bitcoin tracker fund on a regulated exchange in Stockholm and charge 2.5% per annum in fees (see http://xbtprovider.com/lang_en/)
The question I have is why look to build a new product to derive revenue when you already have one that is not being used in this way? Looking at it from a potential user point of view I see the following:

a) CRYPTOCOIN FUND

The idea is to create a cryptocurrency index fund based on a yet to be determined basket.
This basket should be less volatile on average than each cryptocurrency individually.
Much like the stock market the basket value will rise and fall based on the confidence in the assets that underlie it.
Unlike the stock market the index would not need to be recalculated due to dividend payments, stock splits or other annoying corporate actions.
Unlike stocks the cryptoshares can be exchanged easily cross chain for other cryptocurrencies. No need to be exposed to the outside non blockchain world.
To invest in such a basket is really saying that I am optimistic about the future of cryptocurrencies but not confident enough in any particular cryptocurrency to make a sole bet on it. If I lose confidence in cryptocurrencies as an asset class I can switch to Nubits as it is pegged to fiat.
I believe it to be cheaper and easier to invest in a token that gives me exposure to a cryptocurrency basket rather than doing it myself via Shapeshift or some other similar service.
It also has the advantage I do not need to re weight my basket when necessary. The company or organisation calculating the index will do that for me.
–
So I am prepared to pay for the privilege of simplicity and this payment will be made via a spread or offset.

b) NUBITS

For Nubits I have a service that lets me invest in a cryptocurrency that is pegged to the USD.
This allows me to avoid the volatility that I would otherwise be exposed to by investing in cryptocurrencies that are not so pegged.
I can convert my other cryptocurrencies to Nubits (via BTC if necessary) at times when I feel that the volatility in my otherwise held cryptocurrency will increase beyond my risk threshold, is falling likely to fall or when I believe that confidence in cryptocurrencies in general is falling or likely to fall.
To avoid this, I would otherwise need to cash out my cryptocurrency into fiat and back again paying fees to do so while taking my store of value off chain.
–
Yet the fee for conversion to Nubits and back again is negligible thereby giving me almost the full economic benefit of taking such action.

ConfusedObserver 2016-10-05 13:29:44 UTC #45